Role of Operating Conditions in a Pilot Scale Investigation of Hollow Fiber Forward Osmosis Membrane Modules.
aquaporin
forward osmosis
hollow fiber
thin film composite
Journal
Membranes
ISSN: 2077-0375
Titre abrégé: Membranes (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101577807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2019
03 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
29
04
2019
revised:
29
05
2019
accepted:
29
05
2019
entrez:
6
6
2019
pubmed:
6
6
2019
medline:
6
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although forward osmosis (FO) membranes have shown great promise for many applications, there are few studies attempting to create a systematization of the testing conditions at a pilot scale for FO membrane modules. To address this issue, hollow fiber forward osmosis (HFFO) membrane modules with different performances (water flux and solute rejection) have been investigated at different operating conditions. Various draw and feed flow rates, draw solute types and concentrations, transmembrane pressures, temperatures, and operation modes have been studied using two model feed solutions-deionized water and artificial seawater. The significance of the operational conditions in the FO process was attributed to a dominant role of concentration polarization (CP) effects, where the selected draw solute and draw concentration had the biggest impact on membrane performance due to internal CP. Additionally, the rejection of the HFFO membranes using three model solutes (caffeine, niacin, and urea) were determined under both FO and reverse osmosis (RO) conditions with the same process recovery. FO rejections had an increase of 2% for caffeine, 19% for niacin, and 740% for urea compared to the RO rejections. Overall, this is the first extensive study of commercially available inside-out HFFO membrane modules.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31163624
pii: membranes9060066
doi: 10.3390/membranes9060066
pmc: PMC6631378
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Innovationsfonden
ID : 8053-00027B
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Jul;80(14):4577-9
pubmed: 16593343
J Chem Phys. 2006 Aug 7;125(5):054902
pubmed: 16942253
Water Sci Technol. 2011;64(7):1443-9
pubmed: 22179641
Water Res. 2012 May 15;46(8):2683-92
pubmed: 22402269
J Hazard Mater. 2012 Aug 15;227-228:55-61
pubmed: 22640821
Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Jul 3;46(13):7358-65
pubmed: 22663085
Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Mar 5;47(5):2386-93
pubmed: 23363015
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Jun 7;50(11):6044-52
pubmed: 27161935
Membranes (Basel). 2016 Jul 01;6(3):null
pubmed: 27376337
Membranes (Basel). 2017 Jun 12;7(2):
pubmed: 28604649
Bioresour Technol. 2017 Nov;243:47-56
pubmed: 28651138
Water Res. 2018 Jan 1;128:183-192
pubmed: 29102697
Water Res. 2018 Apr 1;132:90-98
pubmed: 29306703
Membranes (Basel). 2018 May 01;8(2):null
pubmed: 29723953
Water Res. 2018 Nov 15;145:429-441
pubmed: 30189398
Water Res. 2019 Mar 1;150:47-55
pubmed: 30503874